Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

Ms. Davis remained in jail on Friday, and her husband said Friday that his wife planned to stay “as long as it takes” until a law was passed that gave county clerks like her the option not to issue marriage licenses that violated their religious convictions.

“She has done her job,” he said. “Just because five Supreme Court judges make a ruling, it’s not a law.”

go back to jr. high civics class, do not pass go

wow

her 4th husband btw

Collect them all!

only God makes laws, iirc

https://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/kim-davis-fourth-husband-says-clerk-wont-resign-tell-judge-bunning-hes-a-butt/

planned to stay “as long as it takes” until a law was passed that gave county clerks like her the option not to issue marriage licenses

She has obviously not paid attention to how long it takes to pass a law, even under the best circumstances.

that law has no hope of passage or being upheld, it's so sad how people can't follow basic legal logic

like, Scalia is right - if your beliefs interfere with doing your job, you shouldn't have that job. it's not your right to have that job.

maybe she's hoping Nino will dress as the Dark Nought and spring her.

https://twitter.com/kimdavis917/status/640312688539623424

is this real

certainly looks real. no hint of irony.

that Twitter account has to be fake

yeah it's fake, go ahead and look up the bible verses she mentions

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/09/08/judge-orders-kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-released-from-jail/

Bunning handled this p cleverly imo - basically demoted her

I'm curious what kinda tone the rally will take; will they soldier on blindly as persecution or do this as victory? Or both?

how dare the court prevent Kim Davis from not doing her job

queers are gettin married in the county, can't see how they can spin that as a victory

CNN is/watch broadcasting this shit live

Is/was, rather

Not a victory for them but they are spinning it that way.

Her original goal was not to let marriage certificates leave her office because she had to rubber stamp them, which she viewed as participation. So her clerks couldn't either...RFRA case law shit all over that.

Now they have changed it to a rubber stamp that doesn't bear her name or post, just the office, and many of the ones signed when she was in jail had her place left blank.

and she and her lawyer are saying these are null and void without her stamp of approval. It has fuck all to do with her personal beliefs - she just wants to stop anybody gay from getting married in her building.

problem is it's not "her" building

It's GOD'S!

lol

so there's bumpkins with leaky brains actually protesting outside the Judge's house, asking the sheriff to take him to jail.

this would be the conservative Judge who likely doesn't agree with the SCOTUS ruling himself but understands how the law works.

Madonna's brother has opinions:

"Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners," Christopher Ciccone, who is gay, wrote in a Facebook post. "The rights we have all fought for, mean nothing, if we deny her hers."

the right to inform her deputies to put themselves at legal risk and not issue marriage licenses

When did it become a sacred right never to be required by one's employer to do anything that conflicts with one's conscience? Because, if that's true, then -whoopee- the gravy train has pulled into the station and there's room on board for everyone!

like, Scalia is right - if your beliefs interfere with doing your job, you shouldn't have that job. it's not your right to have that job.

― Οὖτις, Friday, September 4, 2015 3:07 PM (6 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is... complicated? there are plenty of whistleblowers at various levels of government who we'd applaud for "not doing their jobs." not to mention people working in a fundamentally unjust or murderous system, like nazi germany or, closer to home, america during either of the red scares.

it's not davis's unwillingness to "do her job" that makes her wrong IMO, it's the nature of what she will and won't do. the biggest problem is simply that she cites her religious beliefs, nothing more or less, in rationalizing her unwillingness to perform her duties. that makes her stance conflict with what judges have, for a long time now, considered a basic principle of the rule of law.

but in any case this is all a sideshow. the more compelling fact, IMO, is how many state, county, and other officials--who may disagree with the supreme court ruling and/or may hold deep-seated prejudices against gays and lesbians--are going along with the ruling. they amount to a consensus, which the media focus on davis obscures. so really, we should be celebrating. (though i admit it's somehow both angering and deeply satisfying to contemplate the awesome ignorance of davis and those who have rallied to her.)

there are plenty of whistleblowers at various levels of government who we'd applaud for "not doing their jobs."

I don't see how this is relevant or analogous, really

like nazi germany or, closer to home, america during either of the red scares.

Similarly these were regimes/instances of the gov't acting in an explicitly illegal manner, the rule of law had gone out the window (again, not the case here, much as Davis' supporters would suggest otherwise. There has been no coup, no agency acting beyond its legal bounds)

and I didn't say it was her unwillingness to do her job that makes her wrong, it's her insistence that it is simultaneously her right to HAVE that job AND not do it.

but the Nuremberg Laws were, ah, the law!

are we really gonna get into an argument about whether the Nazi regime was "legal" cuz um

since the fucks at the supreme court gave these morons an inch with the hobby lobby decision

When did it become a sacred right never to be required by one's employer to do anything that conflicts with one's conscience? Because, if that's true, then -whoopee- the gravy train has pulled into the station and there's room on board for everyone!

― Aimless, Thursday, September 10, 2015 9:11 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

are we really gonna get into an argument about whether the Nazi regime was "legal" cuz um

― Οὖτις, Thursday, September 10, 2015 5:59 PM

No, because Chris Ciccone can explain it better.

lol good luck with this guys:

http://freakoutnation.com/2015/09/more-derp-oathkeepers-on-their-way-to-protect-kim-davis-from-further-arrests/

Kim Davis basically now attempting to vanish in a puff of smoke after realizing a week later she didn't actually win. lol

She staunchly asserted that marriage licenses not signed off by her personally are invalid, but if someone wanted to test that assertion in court, who would have standing to challenge the validity of the licenses?

Jesus

her and her lawyers assert that. the judge in question and attorney general have politely said that claim is horseshit.

but essentially what it boils down is, her deputies are now issuing marriage certificates and they don't have her name on it. Isn't that what she wanted? Naw, she wanted no licenses going out at all, and just used the whole "oh my dear personal freedoms" as the excuse.

lol

is someone going to explain the separation of church and state to them

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, September 1, 2015 7:01 PM (3 weeks ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Hey, if you ignore decades of Supreme Court case law, or the secondary intent of the Establishment clause, you can say things like "omg the separation of church and state doesn't even appear in the Constitution" and fool yourself for most of your lifetime.

Harris Wofford, eh?

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/first-amendment-defense-act-would-be-devastating-lgbtq-americans-n698416?cid=sm_fb

FADA would prohibit the federal government from taking "discriminatory action" against any business or person that discriminates against LGBTQ people. The act distinctly aims to protect the right of all entities to refuse service to LGBTQ people based on two sets of beliefs: "(1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage."

Ironically, the language of the bill positions the right to discriminate against one class of Americans as a "first amendment" right, and bans the government from taking any form of action to curb such discrimination—including withholding federal funds from institutions that discriminate. FADA allows individuals and businesses to sue the federal government for interfering in their right to discriminate against LGBTQ people and would mandate the Attorney General defend the businesses.

still taking applications btw

tough call, i don't get screeners anymore...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has declined to step into a case over a Texas high court ruling that says gay spouses may not be entitled to government-subsidized workplace benefits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GsyAoWXScA

Four months without dick -- well.

i'd need to see a financial portfolio

dark times